Kind of a double ended sword. I mean sure the gays gained a few basic rights and were partially acknowledged as equals, but now I've got one less situation to gaudily say "You can't have a first class nation with second class citizens!"

Kind of a double ended sword. I mean sure the gays gained a few basic rights and were partially acknowledged as equals, but now I've got one less situation to gaudily say "You can't have a first class nation with second class citizens!"

Edited, Dec 18th 2010 5:42pm by Allegory

Well, I don't think varus is going to die anytime soon, so you still have plenty of ammo.

____________________________

Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.

Kind of a double ended sword. I mean sure the gays gained a few basic rights and were partially acknowledged as equals, but now I've got one less situation to gaudily say "You can't have a first class nation with second class citizens!"

Don't be silly Bard, like they were gonna let us poor ****** out of the draft. DADT clearly wasn't going to seem so important if we were in a war that actually required the draft.

And the bill can't go into affect for another 60 days, so hopefully the pentagon won't take much longer than that to change procedures.

I'm not really sure why that would take long (other than deliberately delaying it). I mean, how is it not as easy as "Okay, don't report people for being ***--done?--and those undergoing investigations now are cleared?"

The only thing I could see being difficult is readmitting dismissed members with their benefits intact.

It will not happen until the Sec Def, and the Joint Chiefs say its ok to do so. They now have permission to do it, but may postpone it until it is "safe" to our military needs.

Actually, if I recall correctly, there's been some sort of hearing involving the top brass of the armed forces. I do believe all of them but the Marine Corps said they approve of repealing DADT, and General Amos pretty much summed it up as, "We're Marines. We follow orders."

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

DADT was just a horrible idea. All the arguments for it that I've heard (morale, unit cohesion, etc) were used in the 40s before they de-segregated the military, and I'm glad there's one less policy in this country that downgrades *** people.

____________________________

‎

Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:

If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.

They were literally the same argument. Except that the discrimination against gays was worse in ways. Of course, the black guy couldn't hide the fact that he was black. But he was still allowed to serve in some capacity. Th gays just got kicked out and stripped of all their pensions (some of which were the result of over a decade in the service).

And is it just me, or are lesbians in the military more logical than straight women in the military? I mean, the lezzie isn't gonna get preggers, for starters. And have you seen butch lesbians? I would NOT f*ck with them.

The whole argument stems from the idea of the *** as a sissy who can't be trusted in war, which is why they are claiming that it would destroy unit cohesion (with the tough straight soldier unwilling to trust the guy with gaga playing on his ipod in the middle of a fire fight). Of course, they conveniently forget that there are plenty of super masculine *** guys. You know, all those *** guys who were in the military for years before getting caught...

Plus, the policy itself was destroying unit cohesion actively. A few months ago, a veteran flight nurse was kicked out for being a *******. I REALLY doubt the bleeding soldier was going to care that he and the lady ensuring he doesn't die have more in common than he would have thought. Plus, "all right, ******* nurse!"

Same thing for soldiers kicked out of combat troops. Do you think the guys would prefer another person there to help, or for the icky *** to go away? There's a reason comrade testimony has been such a huge part of reinstating gays into the military in the last year.

The whole argument stems from the idea of the *** as a sissy who can't be trusted in war, which is why they are claiming that it would destroy unit cohesion (with the tough straight soldier unwilling to trust the guy with gaga playing on his ipod in the middle of a fire fight). Of course, they conveniently forget that there are plenty of super masculine *** guys. You know, all those *** guys who were in the military for years before getting caught...

o.O Source? From my experiences, that has been the least of anyone's concerns. Sounds like you're making stuff up.

According to the big brass who agreed to the repeal on certain circumstances stated a whole other argument. Coincidentally, the same one I later used...

There is no argument for DADT that doesn't stem from bigotry, so would you care to elaborate your position?

____________________________

‎

Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:

If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.

The whole argument stems from the idea of the *** as a sissy who can't be trusted in war, which is why they are claiming that it would destroy unit cohesion (with the tough straight soldier unwilling to trust the guy with gaga playing on his ipod in the middle of a fire fight). Of course, they conveniently forget that there are plenty of super masculine *** guys. You know, all those *** guys who were in the military for years before getting caught...

o.O Source? From my experiences, that has been the least of anyone's concerns. Sounds like you're making stuff up.

According to the big brass who agreed to the repeal on certain circumstances stated a whole other argument. Coincidentally, the same one I later used...

There is no argument for DADT that doesn't stem from bigotry, so would you care to elaborate your position?

Sure, at first I had my own personal opinion, then I heard a 4 star mention something that I didn't ever realize.

The military living conditions are often tight and close, causing people to live with each other and shower together. Allowing open homosexuals to live with heterosexuals causes the same privacy issues as allowing men and women to live, sleep and shower together. So, the conclusion would be to either have separate billeting or have everyone live, sleep and shower together, regardless of *** or sexuality. This is why they agreed to the repeal, just at a later date.

There is no argument for DADT that doesn't stem from bigotry, so would you care to elaborate your position?

Sure, at first I had my own personal opinion, then I heard a 4 star mention something that I didn't ever realize.

The military living conditions are often tight and close, causing people to live with each other and shower together. Allowing open homosexuals to live with heterosexuals causes the same privacy issues as allowing men and women to live, sleep and shower together. So, the conclusion would be to either have separate billeting or have everyone live, sleep and shower together, regardless of *** or sexuality. This is why they agreed to the repeal, just at a later date.

That's an argument for separate bedding/showers, not an argument for DADT.

Edited, Dec 19th 2010 5:36pm by SuperAtheist

____________________________

‎

Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:

If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.

There is no argument for DADT that doesn't stem from bigotry, so would you care to elaborate your position?

Sure, at first I had my own personal opinion, then I heard a 4 star mention something that I didn't ever realize.

The military living conditions are often tight and close, causing people to live with each other and shower together. Allowing open homosexuals to live with heterosexuals causes the same privacy issues as allowing men and women to live, sleep and shower together. So, the conclusion would be to either have separate billeting or have everyone live, sleep and shower together, regardless of *** or sexuality. This is why they agreed to the repeal, just at a later date.

That's an argument for separate bedding/showers, not an argument for DADT.

An argument that comes down to "them gays are icky so we don't want the real men to have to shower with them" which is pretty sad.

____________________________

Theophany wrote:YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU. someproteinguy wrote:Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist. Astarin wrote:One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.

Alm, you realize that there are women serving overseas too, right? You know how they separate showering facilities on smaller bases? Men shower at 1 time, women at another. Would it ACTUALLY be hard to add in 2 more times? No.

The only problem would be on bigger bases who have two segregated showering facilities. And it's no different than if you showered at a gym.

And guess what, no one who isn't brain dead should care in the first place. Why? Because you are delusional if you think every *** guy wants to have *** with you.

[EDIT] Realistically, a *** guy isn't going to evaluate you any differently than a straight man would. Well, they might take note of different things, but all guys notice the physical traits of other guys. It's just that straight culture has put a taboo on mentioning these for the asinine reason of "seeming ***." You are being judged as much, if not more, by other straight men than by the gays. [/EDIT]

Furthermore, gays in public schools don't even get separate locker rooms. Do you really think the military is going to care? No. I'm ***--know where I changed in high school? With every other guy in the guy's locker room. Know where I go to the bathroom? In men's restrooms. I'm at college right now--I use the men's bathroom on my floor.

The only reason you'd even want separate facilities is if you are uncomfortable being around *** guys. And it has nothing to do with the idea that they are checking you out--that's just an expression of a deeper disgust.

The ENTIRE DADT argument has always been based on the idea that morale and combat effectiveness would be lowered by integrating gays. And that stems from the idea that gays are gross and straights shouldn't be forced to be in close contact with them.

Frankly, I'll be surprised if the military even bothers segregating showers more than they are now. And that's including if they have the chance.

Also, just because a guy isn't out, doesn't mean he's not ***. Not everyone will come out after DADT (and not everyone will after leaving the military, either).

[EDIT]

Also, what I doubt you realized, is that the single locker-room/shower thing is often more uncomfortable for the *** guy once he's out. He worries that he's causing the rest of them to be uncomfortable, which makes him super uncomfortable about being there.

I can only talk about myself, of course, but I hate changing in locker rooms. When I'm anonymous, it's fine, but when guys there know me I feel so weird (at least when we aren't close friends). Though a lot of that has to due with the idea that they are all judging you, or sickened by you. And even though you know they're dumb as **** for thinking that, it's still uncomfortable to be in a room of people you perceive to be judging you.

Honestly, I can change easier in front of my female friends than male ones. The guy's locker room isn't a sexual place at all for me. And, frankly, there's nothing erotic about the sanitary habits of most males...

If I was closeted, I wouldn't be nearly as uncomfortable. So, actually, straight men should welcome guys coming out if what they worry about is the icky *** checking them out.

Also, you are assuming that the reason separate showers exist in the first place is due to sexual desire. Frankly, it seems more true to me that it has to due with a sense of modesty--Men don't expose themselves to women and vice versa. There's nothing a *** man has that the straight man doesn't.

Let me put it this way--why might a straight man be uncomfortable in a co-ed changing room? Do you think it's because he will feel like other people in there are sexually attracted to him? No. Not a chance. It's because he feels like it is immodest.

Some people will be fine with it. Some women may not want to change because they feel like the men might be looking at them sexually. But I doubt any of the straight men don't want to change for that reason.

I could be wrong, of course, but that's my instinct.

So not wanting to change in the same room as a *** is solely because you think gays are disgusting on some level.

Oh, another note, studies have shown that homophobia is often linked to homosexual desire. Just saying.

#23Almalieque,
Posted:Dec 19 2010 at 7:04 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Which has proven the point being argued. I talked to a friend about this last night on the phone and she said exactly what I said before. A lot of us already know who's ***. I can't speak for the circumstances of people being booted. For the most part, people don't care during the work day. More people care when it comes to living arrangements.

You bring up the privacy issue, but why would there be a privacy issue with *** men that wouldn't be there with straight men? What is the issue of privacy?

My other comment would be that if as you've said people are generally aware of who is *** and seem to be fine with it, then where do these privacy issues suddenly come from? Or are there a bunch of issues, and we're just not aware of them.

And guess what, no one who isn't brain dead should care in the first place. Why? Because you are delusional if you think every *** guy wants to have *** with you.

Oh, yea that's right, *** men aren't attracted to men... what was I thinking.... o.O... I thought by now people would drop that stupid argument. So, I guess you think heterosexual men aren't attracted to lesbians?

Holy ****, this has got to be the most stupid argument from you ever. And that's saying a lot.

The military living conditions are often tight and close, causing people to live with each other and shower together. Allowing open homosexuals to live with heterosexuals causes the same privacy issues as allowing men and women to live, sleep and shower together.

Canada, the UK, Israel, France, Germany, Russia... ****, practically every other military on earth worth mentioning has figured out how to make it work. I'm sure we'll figure it out somehow.

And guess what, no one who isn't brain dead should care in the first place. Why? Because you are delusional if you think every *** guy wants to have *** with you.

Oh, yea that's right, *** men aren't attracted to men... what was I thinking.... o.O... I thought by now people would drop that stupid argument. So, I guess you think heterosexual men aren't attracted to lesbians?

Holy sh*t, this has got to be the most stupid argument from you ever. And that's saying a lot.

And don't fuCking ask me to explain.

As a *** man I must point out that I'm attracted to and want to **** anything even remotely manlike.

Almalieque, you clearly haven't followed the history of DADT at all. This has been going on for seventeen years and if you had ever bothered to investigate how politicians defended the policy, then you have no right to get into the discussion.

Maybe you'd also take care to notice that NO POLITICIAN has used the privacy issue as grounds to oppose DADT.

Here's one thing to read. In it, the defense departments general counsel discusses how the historic opposition to DADT was extremely similar to what was holding back integration in the 40's. And he's someone who doesn't believe homosexuality is a "self-identifier" which I assume refers to the idea that being *** isn't something you are forced into.

Check this too--it's a fairly comprehensive list of rebuttles to the typical republican responses (though it is still written as an article--not an essay).

Quote:

Yet General Amos said that because of “the very tough fight in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and deploy into theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces,” he would recommend against the repeal right now.

They worry that the marines won't accept the openly *** soldiers. It has NOTHING to do with them being worried about the *** guy seeing them naked. That's like asking for a different surgeon because he's ***. He's going to have FAR more intimate relations with your body than any *** guy in your troop does. But you'd be a dumbass to make it an issue.

Another quote?

Quote:

Gays aren’t risking dying because they’re dying to do makeovers and make-outs in the barracks. They’re going to adapt and fit in. They’re good at that because they’ve had to be.

Believe me, no one has EVER tried to use the privacy issue to oppose DADT, because it is horrendously weak and is based on a premise of prejudice, which the Republican party needed to avoid if they actually wanted to defend the bill. Notice how they are all super careful to avoid dissing gays? But the fact is that their arguments are extremely weak if you assume that they don't think the troops are irreparably homophobic.

I'm not fucking making crap up. These have ALWAYS been the arguments against DADT's repeal. Just because you think you have authority to refute that because you've chatted with some friends doesn't mean squat.

HAVE people made the privacy objection? Yes. But no politician with any hope of defending DADT has. And the fact that most people making the privacy claim often end up asserting that the guys locker room will turn into an orgy doesn't help (no, really, most articulated articles on the subject inevitably mention that the straight guys are gonna turn to the gays for sexual gratification). And THAT'S the biggest objection they make.

I also like the hidden assertion that gays are sexual deviants that will become the whores of bases.

And have you noticed that the privacy option is rarely mentioned even outside of politics? That's because it is grounded firmly in homophobia.

P.S. You DO realize that many other countries have gays in their military, right? Have you noticed that the lack of privacy hasn't caused the entire system to fragment?

Literally the only capacity the privacy issue has been discussed with has been when the Defense Department said there would be some issues to look into if DADT was repealed (note: they were NOT offered as reasons it shouldn't be). You can find them here, with a pretty good rebuttle, but I'll quote them too:

Quote:

Despite the uncertainty of timing, another military official said that the Department of Defense was beginning to look at the practical implications of a repeal — for example, whether it would be necessary to change shower facilities and locker rooms because of privacy concerns, whether to ban public displays of affection on military bases and what to do about troops who are stationed or make port calls in nations that outlaw homosexuality.

The second one is a fucking joke and has nothing but homophobia to do with it. It's great going to war and having it forbidden from slapping your pal on the back.

The last one is frankly the military's biggest concern. But it's one they already have experience with when it comes to female soldiers in areas that have harsh restrictions on their ***.

But none of these were offered as reasons DADT shouldn't be repealed. They were stated as what the Defense department was thinking about should it fall.

I'm not going to waste any more time with you. You asked a question, I gave you the answer. If you don't like that answer or believe it's true, then that's a personal problem. It is what it is.

I never argued about the history of DADT and admitted that there are people who are ignorant, I responded based on my personal experience, because that's all I can go on.

Then don't claim that your antagonists are making stuff up to suit their needs, when you don't even have a fucking clue (ADMITTEDLY) and aren't even willing to educate yourself when someone GIVES YOU SOURCES. And PS, claiming that I was wrong regarding why people were opposing DADT is arguing about its history.

Because, guess what, you have NO personal experience in this matter. You chatting with a friend about it doesn't suddenly give you insight to some issue.

And, PS, not liking the answer to a question is only a personal problem if your answer is correct. Yours isn't. Goodbye.

#32Almalieque,
Posted:Dec 19 2010 at 8:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I have faith that they will also. Like I said, it's all politics. If the big wigs in the military were really for repealing the DADT, then they would have done it a while back.

Holy sh*t, this has got to be the most stupid argument from you ever. And that's saying a lot.

And don't @#%^ing ask me to explain.

There's nothing for you to explain as you just made up stuff to counter. Thanks for pointing that out and saving me the time from asking you to explain. Straight men don't suddenly think a beautiful lady isn't attractive after finding out that she's a *******. Women don't suddenly think a handsome guy isn't attractive after finding out that he's ***. What makes you think it would change between two people of the same ***? That biologically doesn't make sense.

#34Almalieque,
Posted:Dec 19 2010 at 8:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Didn't know being in the military with homosexuals didn't count as personal experience... This is why I'm not wasting my time debating your "logic". You're pulling up sources from the past and stuff and I'm talking about the present as I'm living it..

Holy sh*t, this has got to be the most stupid argument from you ever. And that's saying a lot.

And don't @#%^ing ask me to explain.

There's nothing for you to explain as you just made up stuff to counter. Thanks for pointing that out and saving me the time from asking you to explain. Straight men don't suddenly think a beautiful lady isn't attractive after finding out that she's a *******. Women don't suddenly think a handsome guy isn't attractive after finding out that he's ***. What makes you think it would change between two people of the same ***? That biologically doesn't make sense.

None of this is the point. God, you're thick.

Wait, wait, wait.. I make a statement, you respond back as that is the dumbest argument ever (haven't heard that before) I REPEAT what I said originally and you say that wasn't the point? HELLO!! I was the one who first made the point, if anyone here is thick, it's you...

Bard understood the point and interpreted your response the same way... so, I think you should try it again if you meant something else.

1. The privacy issue is the exact same as having a man share close quarters with a woman.

What is the privacy issue that exists for a *** man that doesn't exist for a straight man? If you want to say it's the same as with a woman, explain the connection please.

Almalieque wrote:

2. Because they are assumptions. They aren't admitting that they are *** so you have nothing to argue against.

I don't see this as being a significant distinction. If you know someone is ***, then your attitude towards them shouldn't be different if they have explicitly admitted it. I don't buy that somehow them being allowed to admit it magically changes the way people think about a person.

1. The privacy issue is the exact same as having a man share close quarters with a woman.

2. Because they are assumptions. They aren't admitting that they are *** so you have nothing to argue against.

1. No it isn't. They are similar in one sense and very different in another.

If you discourage close quarters because you think the people are sexually voracious, then it is the same--you don't want to change with people of the other *** because it is a sexual atmosphere.

If you discourage close quarters due to modesty, however, there is absolutely no argument against gays sharing living quarters. They have all the same parts you do--it isn't somehow extra barbaric to expose them.

Furthermore, there's an actual risk of sexual tensions when a straight man/woman are together. When gays are with straight people, the attraction is one sided. Nothing is going to happen because any sexual tension is unreciprocated so it doesn't build upon itself. So even if men/women are kept apart for sexual reasons, it still isn't necessarily a problem.

Quote:

There's nothing for you to explain as you just made up stuff to counter. Thanks for pointing that out and saving me the time from asking you to explain. Straight men don't suddenly think a beautiful lady isn't attractive after finding out that she's a *******. Women don't suddenly think a handsome guy isn't attractive after finding out that he's ***. What makes you think it would change between two people of the same ***? That biologically doesn't make sense.

A. Not all men are attractive to *** men--fact. Not all women are attractive to *** women--fact.

B. Not all *** men are sexual fiends who will pounce on a straight man at the first chance they get--fact. Not all *** women are sexual fiends who will pounce on straight women at the first chance they get--fact.

C. When's the last time you heard of a straight man or women getting sexually abused or assaulted by a *** in a gym locker room?

D. You might still find them attractive, but it's a WHOLE DIFFERENT story when you know they aren't into your gender. There are a lot of straight guys I find attractive. There's no sexual tension between us because they don't reciprocate. And no *** guy (who's not a lunatic) tries to push *** on a straight man. For one thing, that's an excellent way to suddenly find yourself the target of a hate crime (seriously). For another, you know as well as anyone else that you are wasting your time.

Quote:

I have faith that they will also. Like I said, it's all politics. If the big wigs in the military were really for repealing the DADT, then they would have done it a while back.

The military != the politicians. If General Patraeus wanted to stop DADT ten years ago, he still wouldn't have been able to until Congress repealed it. Notice how Obama is commander-in-chief of the armed forces? HE couldn't repeal DADT until congress said so. The bill literally had nothing to do with the "big wigs in the military."

If it wasn't alma, I'd volunteer to help. Maybe Bard will take one for the team.

Oh yeah, and @ alma, when the Pentagon released its report saying that the repeal of DADT would cause little to no immediate harm to the armed forces (and no extended harm), it also included a commentary on why the military SHOULDN'T segregate bathrooms.

Quote:

Though some troops suggested during the study that there should be separate bath and living facilities for gays, the report recommended against it because it would be a "logistical nightmare, expensive and impossible to administer."

Further, separate facilities would stigmatize gays and lesbians in the way that "separate but equal" facilities did to blacks before the 1960s, it said.

#41Almalieque,
Posted:Dec 19 2010 at 9:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Because you have no proof, you're just stereotyping. I would have bet $100 that this chick in my class was ***** with her friend and apparently I was wrong. I didn't treat her differently because I thought she was something. There's another guy who acts 120% flamming ***** besides talking to/about women. People still thinks he's a ****, but there isn't any proof to say otherwise. If you're spending that much time thinking about someone's sexuality, then you're wasting time.

A. You were SURE this girl in your class was a "*****" and you know another guy who's "flaming" and you think that people weren't treating them just as bad as if they had come out (even if they weren't?) Until my senior year, I was the *only* out kid in my school. Do you think I was the only one being mocked for being ***?

B. You are only showing how retarded you are if you refuse to read the rebuttles. I'm replying to what you said SPECIFICALLY. I completely understand WHAT you are saying--I'm telling you that you are wrong. The WISE thing to do is evaluate the opposition's argument and try to logically rebuttal. But I guess that basic skill is lost on you. That, or you just like maintaining ignorance.

Quote:

If you're spending that much time thinking about someone's sexuality, then you're wasting time.

That I agree on, which is precisely one of the reasons why I don't think segregated bathrooms matter.

Because you have no proof, you're just stereotyping. I would have bet $100 that this chick in my class was ***** with her friend and apparently I was wrong. I didn't treat her differently because I thought she was something. There's another guy who acts 120% flamming ***** besides talking to/about women. People still thinks he's a ****, but there isn't any proof to say otherwise. If you're spending that much time thinking about someone's sexuality, then you're wasting time.

My FAVORITE thing about the DADT repeal? How some Republican senators are so ****** off that it passed that they are now going to vote against the treaty with Russia out of spite. Lindsey Graham says she won't support it because she doesn't like democrats forcing votes on issues.

LOL WHAT? You are going to vote against a measure you originally supported because you are angry that the democratic congress is trying to vote on issues before we have a lame duck gov't on our hands?

I made the connection by telling you it's the same as with women. If you want a better explanation, why don't you ask a woman who doesn't approve with showering with random men why she feels that way. I have no problem with that idea. Throw everybody together in the shower, I don't care...

Oh, so the privacy isn't actually your argument then. I don't see the connection making the same as with women, please explain how this is.

Almalieque wrote:

Sir X wrote:

I don't see this as being a significant distinction. If you know someone is ***, then your attitude towards them shouldn't be different if they have explicitly admitted it. I don't buy that somehow them being allowed to admit it magically changes the way people think about a person.

Because you have no proof, you're just stereotyping. I would have bet $100 that this chick in my class was ***** with her friend and apparently I was wrong. I didn't treat her differently because I thought she was something. There's another guy who acts 120% flamming ***** besides talking to/about women. People still thinks he's a ****, but there isn't any proof to say otherwise. If you're spending that much time thinking about someone's sexuality, then you're wasting time.

If you didn't treat someone differently based on what you thought about them, why would what you thought being true or not change how you treat someone?

Lindsey Graham says she won't support it because she doesn't like democrats forcing votes on issues.

Lindsey Graham's a dude. Granted, he has a girl's name, a southern accent, lacks ********** & fits the whole "christian conservative whom bangs male hookers but isn't really ***" profile so i can see how that would confuse you.

And Alma thinks gays are icky, which is fine as it is his right to do so. There is no need to "argue" with him about other reasons why he doesn't support DADT repeal, as the "Alma thinks Gays are icky" is the root cause & everything else is BS.

So please stop.

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

And Alma thinks gays are icky, which is fine as it is his right to do so. There is no need to "argue" with him about other reasons why he doesn't support DADT repeal, as the "Alma thinks Gays are icky" is the root cause & everything else is BS.

And Alma thinks gays are icky, which is fine as it is his right to do so. There is no need to "argue" with him about other reasons why he doesn't support DADT repeal, as the "Alma thinks Gays are icky" is the root cause & everything else is BS.

So please stop.

Whoa, sparklepony. Who died and made you Alla? I find it humorous that you are asking for a halt to upstanding debate (if you can call taunting a moran debate, which in here, you certainly can) when you yourself are sitting in the back of the metaphorical point bus.

The focus of his argument is the total lack of comprehension of what constitutes an enforceable policy or law vs. public ideology. Someone can think all day long that brown people are lawnmowing jobstealers who shoot out anchor babies like fireworks, but as long as they don't violate a policy or break a law by doing so, then I have jacksh*t to say about it. You can't regulate thought, so the fact that anyone thinks that gays are icky is FUCKING POINTLESS.

Suck it up, 'men'. Be happy that thinking some chick has a hot *** and you'd like to hit that won't get you accused of rape. Hooray, freedom from oppression.

Edit: @#%^ing filter

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 6:09am by Atomicflea

____________________________

That's the kind of dude I was lookin' for And yes you'll get slapped if you're lookin', ho